The lawyers of the other side got to your client (the clients being Japer Gurung and Junior Ramos, charged with “terrorism” and murder and illegal possession)

When the lawyers of the other side (the lawyers of the State) got to your client  —- The word or phrase you’re looking for, pañero, is : ex parte communication (ex parte communication by opposing counsel) . It is prohibited! (unless with leave of Court)

(Image: Rembrandt digital commons, see archives)

Matters of fact and matters of law (Petition-in-Intervention of Japer Gurung and Junior Ramos in the ATA proceeding was dismissed because, according to the Supreme Court, it raised issues of fact)

(I have not read any of the pleadings in this case, so i do not necessarily agree or disagree with the ruling of the court, this is just an attempt to laypersonize the legal terms used in the proceeding) (i’m jotting these down only because i posted about it earlier)
Laypersonizing (laymanizing) “Matters of fact” or “Issues of fact” : Issues of fact are those that have something to do with whether or not something happened or did not happen, or whether or not someone committed something, or not.
For example, if it is stated that the client did not commit something and the Court is asked to rule based on the that or based on the truth of the statement, an issue of fact is being raised.
Or, if it is stated that something was done or had occurred and the Court is being asked to rule based on the truth of that statement, that is an issue of fact.
A petition for certiorari and prohibition or mandamus or a special proceeding, or a petition in intervention therein, allows only issues of law.
What is an issue of law? — Usually, they’re jurisdictional. When you say that the trial court below which took cognizance has no jurisdiction at all (state the legal grounds), and therefore cannot proceed. Or when you say that the law is unconstitutional, (therefore, the trial court has no jurisdiction (state the grounds).
For example: When the petitioner-intervenor raises that the law of which the petitioner is charged is so vague and so broad that it does not state any elements of overt acts punishable such that petitioner has been put in triple jeopardy for being charged with all three terrorism and murder, and illegal possession, the law is unconstitutional and the regional trial court has no jurisdiction.

(in any case, the SolGen was so bothered by the Petition-in-Intervention that he went out of his way to … see the opening of the second session of the oral arguments)